I'm not sure if it was ever discussed here awhile back, but has anyone ever wondered if the title "The Dark Knight Rises" ever referred to both Bruce and Blake given the latter's ascension towards inheriting the legacy?

I'm not sure if it was ever discussed here awhile back, but has anyone ever wondered if the title "The Dark Knight Rises" ever referred to both Bruce and Blake given the latter's ascension towards inheriting the legacy?

That was exactly what i thought after watching the film. When robin rose on the platform i thought yes the dark knight rises indeed.

Im still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Nolan spends two films on bruce only to give us another origin story in the third and make a self created character batman. I like the film but its still a wtf.

It's because the point of Nolan's Batman films is that Batman exists more as a symbol than a singular person.

The point of the entire series was how Bruce birthed the symbol, but then was able to let it go and allow it to pass onto another person. The trilogy's more about the Batman legacy than Bruce himself.

Which is funny because for the first two films in interviews Nolan would say this is Bruce's trilogy more than Batman's. Heck he was saying that in interviews during TDKR's production. It isnt to say it cant do both things, but in hindsight, i wish he had been less concerned with giving us his ending and more concerned with making a great flick.

__________________"When the snows fall, when the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."

I think the trilogy is about both Bruce Wayne, the man, and the legend he births. TDKR deals with both heavily. I think the title refers to several things:

-Batman "rising" after years of exile
-Bruce Wayne rising/coming back to life (aka Bruce's literal rise from the pit)
-Batman's legend rising with Blake/Blake ascending to the mantle of Gotham's protector

What the hell ? Rises is nothing but a Bruce movie. Blake is a reflection of our main character actions. He's the clear personification of what the trilogy builds upon. Its such a simple tool of narratives.

I love Rises , but it adopts a very classical approach to storytelling. Yes he uses some elliptical form , but Bruce's journey is so explicit in it.

Another origin story ...wow. What movie is that ?

And i remember reading about some redundancy in the director's style. Imagine if it wasn't ...

What the hell ? Rises is nothing but a Bruce movie. Blake is a reflection of our main character actions. He's the clear personification of what the trilogy builds upon. Its such a simple tool of narratives.

I love Rises , but it adopts a very classical approach to storytelling. Yes he uses some elliptical form , but Bruce's journey is so explicit in it.

Another origin story ...wow. What movie is that ?

And i remember reading about some redundancy in the director's style. Imagine if it wasn't ...

To say Blake doesnt have an origin story in this movie is a gross understatement.

__________________"When the snows fall, when the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."

I still say its pretty damn obvious Blake becomes Batman and not Robin or Nightwing.

Definitely.

It makes no other sense for Bruce to fix the Bat signal.

Just because he has Robin in his name or the fact that Robin soon becomes Nightwing as he's older doesn't really add to anything when this story is about Batman and passing the mantle down. Robin John Blake HAS to still be Batman for the story to make any sense.

To say Blake doesnt have an origin story in this movie is a gross understatement.

It depends on the definition. But Blake definitely follows a path during the course of the story. You say that is an origin. Ok.

But the center of the movie is not the origin, much less that character. Blake exists so that Bruce's actions is reflected on something.

You said "Im still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Nolan spends two films on bruce only to give us another origin story in the third and make a self created character batman"

That boggles my mind , because he spent a whole movie (Rises) around Bruce Wayne. Not to give us another origin story. Maybe its a just a bad interpretation of your post by me (sorry , im not english native)

Not really. Like i said i would have rather Nolan make a great film, which it isn't, than try to force an ending to Bruce's story. Its a burdened somewhat sloppy film that was drowning under the weight of trying to wrap up the story.

Take Blake, he needed that character to allow Bruce to have an ending. Then he takes that character and gives him a convoluted back story forcing them to input an 8 year gap inbetween tdk and tdkr because otherwise blake wouldnt be old enough in the film. The eight year gap strains credulity within the character of batman. Then there is the problem of Blake figuring out Batman is bruce all from a look bruce gave him. This of course making every other character look inept due to them having much more evidence batman is bruce but never putting it together. And then there is Nolan giving him the name Robin despitw him becoming batman leaving the general populace to think he is robin or that the film is setting up a sequel that will never come. It was just sloppy.

Has Nolan come out and said why he gave Blake the name Robin besides being a pointless bone?

__________________"When the snows fall, when the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."

Did you even read what i wrote. Creating an 8 year gap that doesnt work within the characterization of batman so that a character can grow up so that said character can give bruce an ending. Naming him robin when he is batman. Having that character discover our heros identity from a single look and yet conveniently no one else can figure it out.

Then there is Talias character and plot which is also broken entirely by the eight year gap which as said was only necessary because blake had to be old enough to do what the story required.

That is sloppy if i ever saw it.

__________________"When the snows fall, when the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives."

Did you even read what i wrote. Creating an 8 year gap that doesnt work within the characterization of batman so that a character can grow up so that said character can give bruce an ending. Naming him robin when he is batman. Having that character discover our heros identity from a single look and yet conveniently no one else can figure it out.

Then there is Talias character and plot which is also broken entirely by the eight year gap which as said was only necessary because blake had to be old enough to do what the story required.

That is sloppy if i ever saw it.

Yes, I did read it. But that doesn't mean it made any legitimate sense.

The eight year gap served a lot more purpose to the overall story - and Bruce as a character - than just to weave Blake's origin in. I'm sorry, if you weren't able to catch that, but I saw it pretty plainly.